shel wrote:Uh... I repeat, only a God could know that there are no Gods. Whether or not he's a God, if he said that there are no Gods that gives him the power (omniscience or whatever) or status of a God.

shel wrote:Uh... I repeat, only a God could know that there are no Gods. Whether or not he's a God, if he said that there are no Gods that gives him the power (omniscience or whatever) or status of a God.

By your logic, only a god could know what is only knowable by a god.

Exactly, and only mortals know what is knowable to mortals. Or to put it another way, we don't know what we don't know. We can guess and make stuff up of course. We're very good at that.

shel wrote:Uh... I repeat, only a God could know that there are no Gods. Whether or not he's a God, if he said that there are no Gods that gives him the power (omniscience or whatever) or status of a God.

By your logic, only a god could know what is only knowable by a god.

Exactly, and only mortals know what is knowable to mortals. Or to put it another way, we don't know what we don't know. We can guess and make stuff up of course. We're very good at that.

You've failed to distinguish your terms - "god" is worthless if you don't define it. It is true that only an omniscient being could know there are no other omniscient beings. But a non-omnipotent omniscient being could certainly know that there is no ultimate creator deity without any contradiction.

Buddha Shakyamuni indeed talked about the so-called supreme deity/creator god in a Pali sutta and explained that this god was simply the first to be reborn in his particular pure realm and just assumed he was an all-powerful creator. Ad then of course Madhyamaka teachings, which simply clarify fundamental teachings given by the Buddha, destroy the argument for the possibility of a creator god. So...

He acknowledged the existence of gods (plural) but that they were not our creators nor our saviours . The OP suggested that the Buddha said that gods did not exist. He did not say that.

shel wrote:Exactly, and only mortals know what is knowable to mortals. Or to put it another way, we don't know what we don't know. We can guess and make stuff up of course. We're very good at that.

You've failed to distinguish your terms - "god" is worthless if you don't define it. It is true that only an omniscient being could know there are no other omniscient beings. But a non-omnipotent omniscient being could certainly know that there is no ultimate creator deity without any contradiction.

I'm sorry Sir, but you've failed to distinguish your terms - "omniscient" is worthless if you don't define it. I know that 'knowing everything' sounds pretty straightforward, but maybe it's not. Why just the other day I was having a friendly chat with Gregkavarnos about this very topic. Some interesting things came up (despite the alledged lack of interest in such things ). For instance, does knowing everything mean knowing things in the future or across time?

For instance, does knowing everything mean knowing things in the future or across time?

I like the phrase "consumate perspicacity". That definition is the only thing Geunther ever contributed of value, IMHO.

A lama I knew that had understanding of the modern world said that seeing Truth was like seeing with x-ray eyes; you see through things, past how they appear to how they really are. Old Tibet did not have that analogy available to them.

A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN

For instance, does knowing everything mean knowing things in the future or across time?

I like the phrase "consumate perspicacity". That definition is the only thing Geunther ever contributed of value, IMHO.

A lama I knew that had understanding of the modern world said that seeing Truth was like seeing with x-ray eyes; you see through things, past how they appear to how they really are. Old Tibet did not have that analogy available to them.

They had water and other transparent objects back in old Tibet. Perhaps they just weren't good at the whole analogy thing.

Atheists do not want any God, and Lord Buddha therefore said that there is no God, but he adopted the means to instruct his followers for their benefit. Therefore he preached in a duplicitous way, saying that there is no God. Nonetheless, he himself was an incarnation of God.Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 5.15.1, Translation and Purport:

There are 2 main issues as i see it to this statement...Firstly, amongst Hindus, many are split over (like the quotes you gave later) whether or not this 'Buddha' is the same as the historical Buddha that 'Buddhism' claims as its founder (although a fairly large number of them assume that it is). Since this issue is a never ending one, I would just leave it as it is and not regurgitate another 100 paged debate.

Secondly, atheists and atheism. I will make a note here that I have oft used the term 'non theist' to describe the message of 'Buddhism' as this would be more fitting term in my poor estimation to steer away from incompatible ideas of modern atheism and the claims of theism & theists (and the latter part is what atheism is against per se). And by the way, atheism can also be distinguished from atheists. Not everything that a supposed atheist does or claim is necessarily compatible with atheism per se.

Thirdly, like so many other claims, if assuming on the insistence that the historical Buddha is seen as the same figure as what some Hindus claim him to be, then let's have a look at two main rebuttals from recorded teachings... (just excerpts only)a. On him being a deva:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.htmlOn one occasion the Blessed One was traveling along the road between Ukkattha and Setabya, and Dona the brahman was also traveling along the road between Ukkattha and Setabya. Dona the brahman saw, in the Blessed One's footprints, wheels with 1,000 spokes, together with rims and hubs, complete in all their features. On seeing them, the thought occurred to him, "How amazing! How astounding! These are not the footprints of a human being!"

Then the Blessed One, leaving the road, went to sit at the root of a certain tree — his legs crossed, his body erect, with mindfulness established to the fore. Then Dona, following the Blessed One's footprints, saw him sitting at the root of the tree: confident, inspiring confidence, his senses calmed, his mind calmed, having attained the utmost control & tranquility, tamed, guarded, his senses restrained, a naga.

On seeing him, he went to him and said, "Master, are you a deva?""No, brahman, I am not a deva."...... "When asked, 'Are you a deva?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a deva.' ..... Then what sort of being are you?"......"Brahman, the fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a deva: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising....... "Just like a red, blue, or white lotus — born in the water, grown in the water, rising up above the water — stands unsmeared by the water, in the same way I — born in the world, grown in the world, having overcome the world — live unsmeared by the world. Remember me, brahman, as 'Awakened.'

b. There are other numerous discourses in which anyone can google on in the early & later periods of Buddhist scriptural collection (as I do not intend to turn this simple reply into an answer from the Congress Library) where the Buddha points out on how the idea or assertion of a Creator, First Cause, the Father of All thingy is either irrelevant, unconnected and faulty with what he had awakened to and taught as Dharma: duhkha & duhkha nirodha.

Śrīla Śukadeva Gosvāmī continued: The son of Mahārāja Bharata known as Sumati followed the path of Ṛṣabhadeva, but some unscrupulous people imagined him to be Lord Buddha himself. These people, who were actually atheistic and of bad character, took up the Vedic principles in an imaginary, infamous way to support their activities. Thus these sinful people accepted Sumati as Lord Buddhadeva and propagated the theory that everyone should follow the principles of Sumati. In this way they were carried away by mental concoction.

I will look at this threefold...assuming he meant the historical Buddha as the 'atheistic' Buddha as coined by another 'Srila Naryana Gosvami Maharaja'... a. Atheism? The Buddha taught on duhkha & duhkha nirodha, as also embodied in the Noble Eightfold Path, the Madhyama Pratipada, not any kind of 'isms'.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.htmlAnd what is declared by me? 'This is stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the origination of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. And why are they declared by me? Because they are connected with the goal, are fundamental to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are declared by me."So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.htmlIn the same way I saw an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. And what is that ancient path, that ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. That is the ancient path, the ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. I followed that path.

b. I am not sure if this is in reference to Jains or Buddhists or some other Sramanic movements but suffice to note that when it comes to 'bad character', as in unskillful actions? Or in reference to not belonging to a particular system regarded as orthodox? If it was the former, it can be immediately refuted both by the testimony of those who have encountered the Buddha, both followers & non-followers in numerous instances & what is contained in his Teaching. If it was the latter, see 12And on 'mental concoction', when one of his own long time attendants, Sunakkhatta/Sunakstra from the influential Licchavi clan accused the Buddha of the same, here using '...teaches a Dhamma (merely) hammered out by reasoning, following his own line of inquiry as it occurs to him...', see how the Buddha responds here

Purport by Srila Prabhupada:Those who are Āryans strictly follow the Vedic principles, but in this age of Kali a community has sprung up known as the ārya-samāja, which is ignorant of the import of the Vedas in the paramparā system. Their leaders decry all bona fide ācāryas, and they pose themselves as the real followers of the Vedic principles. These ācāryas who do not follow the Vedic principles are presently known as the ārya-samājas, or the Jains. Not only do they not follow the Vedic principles, but they have no relationship with Lord Buddha. Imitating the behavior of Sumati, they claim to be the descendants of Ṛṣabhadeva. Those who are Vaiṣṇavas carefully avoid their company because they are ignorant of the path of the Vedas. In Bhagavad-gītā (15.15) Kṛṣṇa says, vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ: "The real purpose of the Vedas is to understand Me." This is the injunction of all Vedic literatures. One who does not know the greatness of Lord Kṛṣṇa cannot be accepted as an Āryan. Lord Buddha, an incarnation of Lord Kṛṣṇa, adopted a particular means to propagate the philosophy of bhāgavata-dharma. He preached almost exclusively among atheists. Atheists do not want any God, and Lord Buddha therefore said that there is no God, but he adopted the means to instruct his followers for their benefit. Therefore he preached in a duplicitous way, saying that there is no God. Nonetheless, he himself was an incarnation of God.[/color]

Firstly, the Acarya is most entitled to what he thinks, like anyone else. But when claiming stuff related to the founder of Buddhism, I wonder if he remembers this as well?

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains what was not said or spoken by the Tathagata as said or spoken by the Tathagata. And he who explains what was said or spoken by the Tathagata as not said or spoken by the Tathagata. These are two who slander the Tathagata."

Secondly, meanwhile, I wonder if he knows that not all atheists hold or define atheism per se is not about 'not wanting any God' but rather many would postulate a mere rejection & questioning of what theism & theistic claims for lack of discernible & demonstrable evidence?

Thirdly, as shown in the first part, the Buddha's own words, as recorded in various scriptural collections, refutes claims of divinity and as shown also, in the scheme of the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path, the claims of theism and the theistic are irrelevant, unconnected and faulty.

Fourthly, on the Vedas? See here & here: with Commentary what the Buddha proposes as the 'proper way of union with Brahma', nothing more but the fourfold Brahma Viharas...

Fifthly, I guess just like all other religious interpretations, what the Vedas are or not remains an inconclusive debate even amongst the Hindus. When Adi Sankaracarya first appeared and championed the Vedas, his brand of Vedanta was thought of as a great victory over the 'nastikas' and re-establishing 'orthodoxy'? Yet, later when all the other forms of Vedanta arose, they each started having their own interpretations and like one friend of mine who has a poor opinion of Sankaracarya where he has been accused of promoting a 'hidden form of Buddhism', that his only victory are that of over materialists and philosophical speculators but not the 'true devotees of the Lord', hence lost to the Tibetan Buddhists in a debate and putting himself into a pot of boiling oil yet in the same breath spouting that he's Mahesvara and his death was only by the permission of Sri Krishna? So I am not too sure on how much weight does Acarya Prabhupada hold except that only those who have regard for him would find him an authority?This reminds me of the conundrum that Martin Luther, the German Reformer faced back then when he first broke away from papal authority, he didn't expect that there would be others who would eventually split from him. And today, some estimate that the Protestants are divided over around 50,000 sects and are still at it... So, not all of them would confess nor admit that each other's versions are on the same page on the Lord Jesus, each only upholding their version?

So, what is 'Buddha' from one Buddhist POV? My fav would be from the Vajracchedika Prajna Paramita...Who sees me in forms,Who seeks me in sounds,He practices a deviant way,And cannot see the Tathagata

As one Hindu of mine opines, the Sanatana Dharma is like a great mother, embracing all of her astika and nastika children equally Personally, I admire what they have next to Taoism but the focus for me remains on what is duhkha & duhkha nirodha. I doubt I can manage more than one wife...

The Buddha is not concerned with or teaching 'belief' as such. There is a need for some degree of belief, as in a 'willingness to consider', but the emphasis in Buddhism is on seeing how the processes of the mind give rise to suffering through mis-identification, and so on.

But if there are those who wish to pursue liberation through belief in God, then that is their perogative.

Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas

jeeprs wrote:The Buddha is not concerned with or teaching 'belief' as such. There is a need for some degree of belief, as in a 'willingness to consider', but the emphasis in Buddhism is on seeing how the processes of the mind give rise to suffering through mis-identification, and so on.

The purpose is the cessation of suffering, and if you haven't achieved that, or actually know anyone who has achieved that, then belief is required. Belief is not a bad thing.

smcj wrote:In the late 19th century a Russian journalist wrote a book about Jesus having traveled to India to learn Buddha's Dharma. Nobody that checked his "sources" found evidence of any such thing. Yet the idea persists even to this day. That doesn't make it true.

Buddha Shakyamuni indeed talked about the so-called supreme deity/creator god in a Pali sutta and explained that this god was simply the first to be reborn in his particular pure realm and just assumed he was an all-powerful creator. Ad then of course Madhyamaka teachings, which simply clarify fundamental teachings given by the Buddha, destroy the argument for the possibility of a creator god. So...[/quote]

He acknowledged the existence of gods (plural) but that they were not our creators nor our saviours . The OP suggested that the Buddha said that gods did not exist. He did not say that.

GasshoSeishin.[/quote]

No I didn't...Srila Prabhupada (not me) said that Buddha denied the existence of a Supreme Creator God, not Devas or Demi-Gods."...Lord Buddha therefore said that there is no God,..."

Since I live in Portugal, I can only answer to posts between 9:00 and 20:00 (0º UTC).

The term ' Hinduism' is shorthand for a whole raft of views from Bhaktiyoga to impersonal Vedanta. It was invented by western scholars. But it is a convenient piece of shorthand...What is common to all ' Hindu ' traditions is a complete unwllingness to examine the possibility that a system of belief can exist which is outside of its purlieu.

So everything must be gathered up and explained by the light of ' Hinduism '..therefore the Buddha and even Jesus must be Incarnations of Visnu.

This universalism and appropriation amounts to an excellent way to completely misunderstand all non Hindu paths. It is even more effective than opposing them.

I am sad to see that some people prefer cheap insults rather than debate...There was nothing offensive in this verse from the Srimad Bhagavatam,which has 5000 years old at least, and was not invented by Srila Prabhupada...I am in favor of pluralism but all I see is hatred between cultivators of alltraditions, some Vaishnavas included. So sad.With that, I am taking temporary break from forums of the kind, anddedicate myself to my sadhana.I am honored to have met some good souls here... sorry, some good people here.Your friend and servant,John

Since I live in Portugal, I can only answer to posts between 9:00 and 20:00 (0º UTC).